Floyd William Damren v. State of Florida

236 So. 3d 230
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 2, 2018
DocketSC17-1080
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 So. 3d 230 (Floyd William Damren v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Floyd William Damren v. State of Florida, 236 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Floyd William Damren's appeal of the circuit court's order denying Damren's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Damren's motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). This Court stayed Damren's appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock , Damren responded to this Court's order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Damren's response to the order to show cause, as well as the State's arguments in reply, we conclude that Damren is not entitled to relief. Damren was sentenced to death following a jury's unanimous recommendation for death. Damren v. State , 696 So.2d 709 , 710 (Fla. 1997). Damren's sentence of death became final in 1998.

*231 Damren v. Florida , 522 U.S. 1054 , 118 S.Ct. 706 , 139 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Damren's sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So.3d at 217 . Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Damren's motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Damren, we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court's opinion in Hitchcock v. State , 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 513 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Floyd William Damren v. State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
236 So. 3d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-william-damren-v-state-of-florida-fla-2018.